On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 23:53 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 2009.06.28 23:14, Ferris McCormick wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:40:00 +0100 > > Roy Bamford <neddyseag...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > What if an entire meeting and therefore any votes were staffed by > > > entirely by non gentoo developer proxies? > > > Unlikely, but perfectly possible under GLEP39. Would Gentoo feel > > > bound > > > by decisions that such a meeting reached? > > > > > > > Currently, yes. > > > > > Oh. Don't talk about 'common sense' GLEP39 does not mention it, so > > it > > > doesn't count ... and its much rarer than you may think. > > > > > It's worse than that. I think 'common sense' is subjective and thus > > not a useful method of interpretation. Even if one disagrees with > > that > > statement, 'common sense' is certainly cultural (do you suppose > > common > > sense in N. Korea is the same as common sense in S. Korea? I don't > > think so at all.). So, 'common sense' for Gentoo still cannot be all > > that useful a method of interpretation, because Gentoo most certainly > > is multi-cultural. > > > > > Lastly, as a trustee and partly legally responsible for decisions > > > made on behalf of Gentoo, I am uneasy with the concept of non > > > developers making those decisions. Now reread my 'what if' above > > > with that liability in mind. > > > > > It's not that bad. as long as council meets every two weeks, any > > decision can be undone within 2 weeks (and council can always hold a > > special session. Although under your 'what if' scenario, we have a > > council which does not take its responsibilities very seriously.) > > > Note: Other trustees may have a different view of the world > > > > > I'm sure we all have different views of the world. But I generally > > agree with what you have written here, I think. > > You agree that common sense can't be used and admit that a corner case > exists that would in effect have the trustees pointing out to the > council that they had made an error of judgement and need to reverse a > decision that the last meeting made. I would prefer never to have to go > there. >
I meant that the council can reverse itself. I did not intend to imply any trustee action --- I intended to imply that council should be able to see when they had made an error of judgment. > I do not agree that an all proxy council meeting shows that the council > does not take its responsibilities very seriously, rather that real > life has hit everyone at the same time and they have appointed > proxies. GLEP39 does not even set a limit on the maximum number of > council members who may be proxied at any single meeting. Fair enough. But I don't think such a meeting should ever happen. Surely, council can reschedule a meeting if they see this coming up. :) > As I have already said, I'm against the idea of proxies altogether. > We should amend glep39 to remove proxies and ensure that council > members are drawn from the developer community. Of course, that > does not eliminate the possibility of the trustees pointing out to the > council that they need to reverse a decision but it does ensure that > decisions are made only by council members who are Gentoo developers. > > - -- > Regards, > > Roy Bamford > (NeddySeagoon) a member of > gentoo-ops > forum-mods > treecleaners > trustees > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkpH9GAACgkQTE4/y7nJvavFPwCguehKyVF6Ep294VWSHB14Dlq/ > mKIAmwWe9bHlEHwYayljnsisUW8p3VsK > =Npgw > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Regards, Ferris -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmc...@gentoo.org> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
